i worked a bit in cyber security Osint etc. I don't like furries and i love chess & my favorite animals are crows dogs Parrots and Turtles (i fixed some errors)
⚠️ RAPPEL : Lundi 1er septembre, Tor 0.4.8 est éjecté du réseau
Les relais, les bridges et les .onion encore coincés sur C Tor 0.4.8 (ou plus ancien) cessent tout simplement de fonctionner
Trop de champs morts dans l’annuaire, trop de bande passante gaspillée, et Arti (le Tor réécrit en Rust) a besoin d’un réseau qui n’entraîne plus 15 ans de rustines !
➡️ La cible, c’est 0.4.9 ou plus récent
Si tu ouvres seulement Tor Browser et qu’il est à jour (15.0.20), tu n’es pas concerné
L’alpha 16.0a10 du 27 août, elle, est pour ceux qui testent la prochaine branche. Pas pour un usage quotidien
🗓️ Dans la même fenêtre, deux outils bougent :
- Mullvad a clarifié Multihop le 24 août... toujours deux sauts, désormais plus simple à régler
- Snowflake Volunteer, sur Android (Play et F-Droid), transforme un téléphone en pont. En Wi-Fi, idéalement en charge. Toi tu n’y gagnes pas d’anonymat. Tu prêtes un morceau de connexion à ceux qui n’ont plus d’internet libre
Bref...
Avant lundi un relais ou un .onion oublié passe en 0.4.9
Tor Browser se met à jour
Un vieux Android qui dort peut servir à quelque chose
#Tor #Privacy
tl;dr United States government rules it may be legal to possess CSAM (Child Pornography) if it's AI generated
Dawg, last week the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision which will unironically change the way CSAM (Child Pornography) is handled in the United States.
Under United States v. Anderegg, Anderegg was charged with distribution and possession of Child Pornography. Anderegg used Stable Diffusion AI to generate hyper-realistic depictions of children having sex.
While charged with CSAM, Anderegg appealed the decision and argued it was not possession of CSAM because the "children" in the images were not "real" children. Rather, Anderegg and his attorneys argued that it is not illegal to possess obscene material which does not harm anyone.
The courts official ruling: By 1969 ruling of Stanley v. Georgia, you are protected by the United States First Amendment to privately possess obscene material in one's home. Hence, because the images are completely computer generated, and no actual child was used to create the pornography, the United States government cannot constitutionally criminalize someone's private possession of those obscene images in their home under this statute
Google says YOU must wait 24 hours if you download an app onto your OWN DEVICE if it's from an "Unverified developer". What ever happened to user choice and Android freedom?! 😡
Google has started rolling out its new ""Advanced Flow", which requires you to wait a 24-hour waiting period if you want to install apps from unverified developers.
Find out more: https://t.co/c89lutjITS
Sign the petition:
https://t.co/pMT2Xhsxwa
@Pirat_Nation Swatters need heavier sentences, and you BET those fuckers are blabbing all about in discord, what they have done and how gangsta they are, idk if they are teens or not i want them for life in prison.
@setupspawn Wait did it actually get taken down... no i aint falling for this am i?
nooo the comments says it is still up, but what if it is an lie?
he will rick roll me after so many years? It can't be, i can't let that be, i will isolate myself for a month and look at it.
@droidbuilds Im not sure what you meant by gorgeous code, but i agree most times i ask for any AI to do anything its beautiful code till i have to waste hours of my life debugging cause the AI context window got drained, mostly cause i used free versions cause im broke.
@Grunt2A@Skelly4Liberty what he is being charged with is different which only requires that he acted to prevent a lawful seizure of property, regardless of what was on it, this is why there is an motion fight, if the judge finds the stop was a pretext for his activism, it will be ruled as unlawful.
@Skelly4Liberty Again in my front page, from what i have seen he is not being charged with destroying evidence but maybe later might be added but prosecutors need to show he knowingly took an action for the purpose of preventing or delaying a lawful government seizure, wich needs investigation.
@vxdb Oh nvm i just remembered, at the border there is no need for lawful reason (wich is weird? But pretty sure at every country its like this), but im pretty sure you still need to have an case for lawful research, wich we will need to wait the judges ruling.
@vxdb also in any case prosecutors would have to establish there actually was an investigation and that the phone contained evidence relevant to it, wich they cannot do yay! if the judge finds the stop was a pretext, considering info on the motion fight that will be given to the judge.
@vxdb Pretty damn sure you need a lawful reason to search someone? Pretty sure thats not fitting, knowingly destroying, concealing, or covering up any record, document, or tangible object with intent to impede or obstruct a federal investigation, in this case none of those happened.